APC Resignation Date: Warri Court Reserves Judgment In Omo-Agege’s NDC Candidacy Suit Till November 24

The Federal High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State, has reserved judgment till November 24, 2026, in the suit challenging the candidacy of former Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, as winner of the May 29, 2026 senatorial primaries of the Nigeria Democratic Congress, NDC.

Justice Hyeladzira Ajiya Nganjiwa fixed the date for judgment in Suit No. FHC/WR/CS/120/2026, filed by Alexander Osondu Akpodiete, after taking extensive arguments from counsel to the plaintiff, the NDC, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, and Senator Omo-Agege.

At the heart of the proceedings was the date of Senator Omo-Agege’s resignation from the All Progressives Congress, APC. Lead counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Damian Dodo, SAN, submitted that Omo-Agege purportedly resigned from the APC on May 18 and exhibited a letter to that effect.

This was countered by Dr. Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, counsel to Omo-Agege, who told the court that the only letter of resignation duly acknowledged by the APC and supported by an affidavit deposed to by the party itself is dated May 5. Ikpeazu submitted that the plaintiff did not deny this fact and that, under the law, resignation takes effect from the date of receipt and acknowledgment. He argued that once acknowledged on May 5, whatever the APC did with Omo-Agege’s name thereafter has no binding legal effect on him, as holding otherwise would allow the APC to perpetuate injustice against persons who have duly resigned.

The NDC also raised a preliminary objection challenging the plaintiff’s locus standi, contending that Akpodiete did not obtain its senatorial nomination form, was not screened or cleared to participate in the May 29 primaries, and that his name does not appear in the INEC report on the primaries. In response, counsel to the plaintiff argued that his client obtained the party’s Expression of Interest form — a submission that led to hushed discussions among lawyers in court on whether merely obtaining an Expression of Interest form without obtaining the nomination form and being cleared is sufficient to confer locus standi.

ALSO READ: Dafinone Has Become A Joke Taken Too Far, Can’t Retire Omo-Agege, Says Anaughe

On whether Omo-Agege’s name is legitimately on the NDC register, counsel to the plaintiff argued that if he resigned from the APC on May 18, it was logically impossible for his name to have been in the NDC register submitted to INEC earlier. However, his argument appeared confused when confronted with unchallenged affidavit evidence from the APC itself, deposed to by its relevant personnel on oath, confirming that Omo-Agege formally resigned on May 5, not May 18. The Certified True Copy of the NDC membership register submitted to INEC, placed before the court by INEC, NDC and Omo-Agege as first, second and third defendants respectively, confirmed that Omo-Agege’s name is contained therein, thereby satisfying Section 77 of the Electoral Act.

A significant part of the proceedings centred on INEC’s last-minute de-briefing of its original counsel and engagement of a new counsel who sought to withdraw all processes previously filed for the Commission. This sparked arguments on whether the court has a duty to consider all affidavit evidence before it. Ikpeazu, SAN, argued that only a deponent can withdraw his affidavit through a fresh affidavit, and while counsel may withdraw processes, the court cannot be foreclosed from considering evidence already before it. He maintained that INEC’s direct evidence on record already corroborated Omo-Agege’s membership of the NDC.

Counsel to Omo-Agege also raised a preliminary objection that the originating summons was taken out and signed by a person whose name is not on the Roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria, contrary to the Legal Practitioners Act. In response, counsel to the plaintiff described it as a mere clerical error. Ikpeazu, SAN, however, invited the court to determine whether a court process signed by a person not on the Roll kept by the Registrar of the Supreme Court can be valid in law.

Similarly, on the allegation that the plaintiff relied on an uncertified private copy of a document purported to be a register, contrary to the Evidence Act, counsel to the plaintiff argued that he filed a copy of his application for the CTC and that it should be deemed sufficient. This was vehemently countered by Ikpeazu, SAN, who insisted that the Evidence Act clearly provides that no other copy of a public document is admissible except a CTC or its original.

The atmosphere in and outside the courtroom was tense throughout. Observers noted that all vehicles that brought the plaintiff’s legal team to court bore ‘DTGH’ number plates, meaning Delta State Government House, prompting questions about the interest of the Delta State Government in a suit purportedly filed by an individual who claims to be a member of the NDC.

Justice Nganjiwa, after listening to all arguments, adjourned the matter to November 24, 2026, for judgment.